Free legal contract reviewer.
Deterministic. No AI.

121 rules at launch across ten categories — 220 more in v3, 771 more in v4, 621 more in v5, 92 more in v6 (1,825 in total). Every finding cites the rule by id; legal assertions cite a statute or regulator by URL, drafting-practice findings cite their practice source.

Your file goes in on the left, runs through a deterministic rule engine fed by the Knowledge Base, comes back out on the right as a Word document. Nothing else moves.

Every other contract tool leans on a language model: paste your contract, the AI summarizes, the AI flags risk, the AI suggests redlines. The output is fluent, confident, and different every time you run it. A junior associate can use that for research. A senior partner cannot sign off on it, an auditor cannot trace it, and a client cannot reproduce it. It is, by construction, uncitable.

Vaulytica does the work those tools cannot: exhaustive, identical, cited checking. The professional failure mode in contract review is not "I did not understand the indemnity clause." It is "I read eighty pages at midnight and missed that the auto-renewal triggers sixty days before expiry rather than thirty." A deterministic checklist runner catches that failure mode every time.

• It does not give legal advice. It is a software tool. If something here matters, hire a lawyer.
• It does not replace your judgment. It finds mechanical things consistently. The hard calls are still yours.
• It does not use AI. Not a model, not a copilot, not "powered by." A probabilistic answer cannot be cited. The whole point of this is the opposite.
• It does not draft for you. Where a rule has an attributed public model clause, the report shows that clause as a reference — never a generated redline.
• It does not see your data. There is no server. Your contract never leaves the tab.

Vaulytica runs entirely in your browser. There is no server to send your file to, because there is no server. The site is a static page on Cloudflare Pages, the code is on GitHub under MIT, and there is no analytics, no telemetry, no error reporting, and no fonts from CDNs. Every byte your browser fetches comes from vaulytica.com.

Verify it in about thirty seconds:

1. Open this page in Chrome, Firefox, or Safari.
2. Press F12 (or ⌥⌘I on macOS) to open DevTools.
3. Click the Network tab and check "Disable cache."
4. Reload once to capture the initial asset loads, then click Clear.
5. Drop a contract and watch the tab during analysis. You may see the app fetch its own rule data and playbooks from this same origin — every request is a GET with no body, and nothing from your document appears in any of them.

Courts increasingly regulate generative-AI use in filings: the Ropes & Gray AI Court Order Tracker lists 300+ judge- and court-level directives, and the Legal AI Governance tracker counts roughly 113 orders that bind attorney filings — most requiring disclosure of AI use, verification of AI output, or a certification that neither occurred (New York's court-system-wide 22 NYCRR Part 161 took effect June 1, 2026). Privilege case law on consumer AI tools is diverging, not settled — compare United States v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y. 2026, no privilege for material run through a public generative-AI tool) with Warner v. Gilbarco (E.D. Mich. 2026, no waiver) — and ABA Formal Opinion 512 puts the verification duty on the lawyer.

Vaulytica can make the no-generative-AI certification provable rather than asserted: every report can ship with a one-page verification certificate (Word + JSON) stating the engine and knowledge-base versions, the input's SHA-256, the result hash, and that the analysis was a deterministic rule evaluation with no generative-AI, machine-learning, or probabilistic component — performed locally, with no document content transmitted. The certificate carries its own tamper-evident hash, and anyone can re-run vaulytica verify <report> <file> to reproduce the analysis exactly. It certifies what this tool did — never your overall compliance; the reviewing attorney remains responsible for verifying findings and meeting the applicable orders and professional-conduct rules.

Every rule cites at least one of these. Every source is free and public. A citation is not the same as a lawyer vouching for the rule: separately, a legal-basis ledger records which rules a licensed attorney has independently signed off on — 0 so far. That is the honest starting point, published so you can watch the number climb rather than take a marketing claim on faith.